ORDER : 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1992 on 13th September 1995 and the order of sentence passed against Hukam Singh, Madan Singh and Phool Singh on the same day. 2. In Sessions Case No. 47 of 1992, the aforementioned convicts were sent up for trial on the charge under section 302 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as narrated by the informant Arjun Singh is that on 22nd July 1992 the accused persons attacked his father Bhanwar Singh and caused serious injuries on his head and body with a common intention to cause his death. On the basis of his written statement given to the Officer In-charge of Desuri around 2.30 pm on 2nd July 1992, a first information report vide Case No. 60 of 1992 was registered against the accused persons under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report and sent the dead body of Bhanwar Singh for post-mortem examination. This is the case of prosecution that on the basis of the disclosures given by the accused persons the crime weapon was recovered and sent for chemical examination to the FSL at Jaipur. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Hukam Singh, Madan Singh and Phool Singh and the charges were framed against them as aforesaid. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 38 witnesses and produced 61 material articles to support the charges framed against the aforementioned accused persons. On the other hand, the accused persons referred to the statements of Kheemaram vide Exhibit-1, Sawaram vide Exhibit-2, Laluram vide Exhibit-3, Smt. Lacchi vide Exhibit-4 and Devi Chand vide Exhibit-5 to demonstrate contradiction and improbability in the prosecution story. 4. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the statement of Paka Ram who tendered evidence as PW-20 and other witnesses to come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under section 302 or under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For arriving at such a conclusion, the Sessions Judge held that there was no motive on the part of the accused persons to commit murder and the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment. 5. Mr. For arriving at such a conclusion, the Sessions Judge held that there was no motive on the part of the accused persons to commit murder and the occurrence took place in the heat of the moment. 5. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General refers to the medical evidence tendered by Dr. Manoj Kumar Saxena who was examined as PW-8 to support the present Acquittal Appeal on the ground that the number of injuries and the vital part of the body on which those injuries were caused are sufficient reasons to conclude that the accused persons had requisite intention and knowledge that death would be caused on account of such assault on Bhanwar Singh. 6. As PW-8, Dr. Manoj Kumar Saxena rendered his opinion that the injury Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death. 7. The following injuries were found on the person of Bhanwar Singh: [English Translation] “1. Irregular incised wound on left parieto-occipital region in which left parietal bone was broken into pieces and brain was exposed. This injury was 11 cm, 8 cm, 9 cm deep as far as brain and 5 cm above left ear. Edges of injury were swollen and blood was collected inside the injury. Injury was caused by a blunt weapon and before death. 2. Incised wound 5x1 cm deep as far as bone, occipital bone in the middle near occipital protuberance. Edges of injury were swollen and blood was collected inside the injury. There was fracture of occipital bone at the same place. Injury was caused by a blunt weapon and before death. 3. Contusion Mark - 12 cm x 7 cm on left cervical region below left ear towards neck along with temporomandibular joint. There was a fracture and blood had accumulated in the left ear. The wound was red in colour. The injuries were caused by a blunt weapon and before death. 4. Contusion Mark - 18 x 2 cm was red in colour, vertically on the back side above the right shoulder. 5. Contusion Mark - 20 x 2 cm was red in colour, horizontally from the upper part of the left shoulder to the upper part of the right shoulder. 6. Contusion Mark - 3 was red in colour, vertically on the back side of the right chest, near the spine, 24 to 26 cm long and 2 cm wide. 7. 5. Contusion Mark - 20 x 2 cm was red in colour, horizontally from the upper part of the left shoulder to the upper part of the right shoulder. 6. Contusion Mark - 3 was red in colour, vertically on the back side of the right chest, near the spine, 24 to 26 cm long and 2 cm wide. 7. Contusion Mark - 10 x 2 cm was red in colour, horizontally on the left side lower part of the back side of the chest. 8. Contusion Mark-3 - 10 to 12 cm long and 2 cm wide horizontal red spot on right shoulder bone. 9. Contusion Mark 4 - On right calf, the horizontal spots were 6 to 8 cm long and 2 cm wide and red. 10. Contusion Mark-2 - On left calf, the horizontal spot was 5 to 6 cm long and 2 cm wide and red. 11. Contusion Mark - Left lumbar region on the back side had a horizontal wound measuring 22 cm x 2 cm in red colour. Injuries No. 4 to 11 were of ordinary nature caused by blunt weapons and occurred antemortem. Injuries to the bones of the head: (1) Multiple fractures of left parietal bone. (2) Multiple fractures of left temporal bone. (3) Multiple fractures of left occipital bone. (4) Fracture of the base of the brain.” 8. In the post-mortem report, the bony injuries over skull were described as under: (i) Multiple pieces fracture of Parital bone (Lt. sided) (ii) Multiple Pieces fracture of Temporal bone (Lt.) (iii) Multiple Pieces fracture of occipital bone Lt. sided. (iv) Fracture of base of skull Lt. sided. 9. In the present Acquittal Appeal, the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge are not under challenge. This is the case of the prosecution that injuries were caused to Bhanwar Singh by lathi which was recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The Sessions Court has made an observation in this context that lathi is carried by the villagers and it does not fall under the category of weapon. The defence set up by the accused persons is that there was a dispute regarding possession over a piece of land and the incident had happened only because Bhanwar Singh had objected to ploughing of the field through a tractor. The defence set up by the accused persons is that there was a dispute regarding possession over a piece of land and the incident had happened only because Bhanwar Singh had objected to ploughing of the field through a tractor. The Sessions Judge therefore held that the accused persons had exceeded their right to private defence of property and, accordingly, held them guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In our opinion, in the aforesaid background, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the accused persons had assaulted Bhanwar Singh with an intention to cause death. Even otherwise, in a crime where there are number of accused persons and it is not established by the prosecution who had given the fatal blow; where the victim has suffered a number of injuries, it would not be safe to convict the accused persons for the charge of murder. 10. From the materials on record, we gathered the impression that the respondents had intended to beat Bhanwar Singh and in the process they caused such injuries which ultimately resulted in his death. In Matadin v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 216 there was an allegation against one of the accused for exhorting the other accused persons ‘Maro Saale Ko’ and this expression was interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as not carrying intention to kill but to beat the victim. 11. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, the learned Additional Advocate General has however submitted that the sentence awarded to the respondents was disproportionate to the gravity of offence. 12. However, having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place about 33 years in the past and now Phool Singh and Madan Singh have passed away, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. The another reason why this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment of RI for 3 years, which the convicts had already undergone at the time of judgment, is that there is no specific ground taken in the memo of appeal challenging inadequacy of sentence and no appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State. 13. 13. We have also this in our mind that the High Court in dealing with an appeal against acquittal may exercise a similar power as in an appeal against conviction and re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion but the Court must keep in mind that there are judicially evolved norms and guidelines for interfering with a judgment of acquittal. In the first place, acquittal of the accused by the trial Court raises a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and secondly, wherever two views are possible the High Court shall be almost denuded of its powers to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 14. In Kalyan v. State of U.P. (2001) 9 SCC 632 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 : AIR 1973 SC 2773 this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in a criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 821, Paras 27-28) “27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 821, Paras 27-28) “27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiation. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether. It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Allen quoted on p. 157 of ‘The Proof of Guilt’ by Glanville Williams, 2nd Edn. “I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos.” 28. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos.” 28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : AIR 1973 SC 2622 as is clear from the following observations: “Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distinction between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” 9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely: (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) non-interference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court.” 15. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 188/1996 is dismissed.